Is there evidence that Jesus Christ existed? Yes, there is.

a reply to: windword
Christ:

The title of Jesus, from the Greek word Khri·stosʹ, which is equivalent to the Hebrew word translated “Messiah,” or “Anointed One.”—Mt 1:16; Joh 1:41.

What does the title "Christ" have to do with "deification"? When did this title began to apply to Jesus?

“Christ” is not a mere appellative added to distinguish the Lord Jesus from others of the same name; it is an official title.—See JESUS CHRIST; MESSIAH.

The coming of the Christ, the one whom Jehovah would anoint with his spirit to be the Messianic King, had been foretold centuries before Jesus’ birth. (Da 9:25, 26) However, at his birth, Jesus was not yet the Anointed One or Christ. In foretelling his birth, the angel instructed Joseph: “You must call his name Jesus.” (Mt 1:21) But when the shepherds near Bethlehem were given the angelic announcement, in anticipation of Jesus’ future role they were told: “There was born to you today a Savior, who is Christ the Lord,” that is, “who is to be Christ the Lord.”—Lu 2:11, ftn.

The personal name of Jesus followed by the title Christ may call attention to the person himself and that he is the one who became the Anointed One of Jehovah. This occurred when he reached about 30 years of age, was baptized in water, and was anointed with Jehovah’s spirit visibly observed in the form of a dove descending upon him. (Mt 3:13-17) This is the point Peter made at Pentecost: “God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus,” evidently recalling the expression he had heard from the lips of Jesus, who first used the term “Jesus Christ.” (Ac 2:36-38; Joh 17:3) This expression “Jesus Christ” is also used in the opening words of the Christian Greek Scriptures.—Mt 1:1.
...

Source: Christ: Insight, Volume 1

Do you have anything to say about the bolded quotation from the widely respected scientific source that I bolded in the comment you were responding to? Let's have another look:

After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopædia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

a reply to: whereislogic

The title of Jesus

What? Jesus is Greek for Joshua, not "Christ". The New Testament Jesus was know as Jesus of Nazareth, or "The Nazarene".

Christ was a Greek title, merged with the same Hebrew title shared by King Saul, King David, King Solomon and Cyrus the Great, that stemmed from Ptolemy's 1 & 11's attempts to united the Egyptian realm through one "universal" religious understanding, around 200 BC. It was a title claimed by many.

Also, Jesus of the New Testament fails to fulfil the Jewish Messiah's promise.

originally posted by: windword
Jesus is Greek...

No it's not. It's English, and so is "Joshua", "Christ", "Messiah" and a gazillion other names and titles. Are you interested in answering any of my previous questions?

a reply to: whereislogic


Jesus and Joshua are the same name. Period.

Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord.
(If His name was Yeshua, why do we call Him Jesus?)

Christ is a title that has been claimed by Pagans and Jews alike, before and after the event of Jesus of Nazareth, if he ever existed.

Joshua:
Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him.
2 The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”
3 Now Joshua was dressed in filthy clothes as he stood before the angel.
4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, “Take off his filthy clothes.”
Then he said to Joshua, “See, I have taken away your sin, and I will put fine garments on you.”
5 Then I said, “Put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him, while the angel of the Lord stood by.
6 The angel of the Lord gave this charge to Joshua:
7 “This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘If you will walk in obedience to me and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you a place among these standing here.
8 “‘Listen, High Priest Joshua, you and your associates seated before you, who are men symbolic of things to come: I am going to bring my servant, the Branch. 9 See, the stone I have set in front of Joshua! There are seven eyes on that one stone, and I will engrave an inscription on it,’ says the Lord Almighty, ‘and I will remove the sin of this land in a single day.
10 “‘In that day each of you will invite your neighbor to sit under your vine and fig tree,’ declares the Lord Almighty.”
(Zachariah 3)

Joshua!

a reply to: windword
Jesus Christ: Insight, Volume 2

The name and title of the Son of God from the time of his anointing while on earth.

The name Jesus (Gr., I·e·sousʹ) corresponds to the Hebrew name Jeshua (or, in fuller form, Jehoshua), meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation.” The name itself was not unusual, many men being so named in that period. For this reason persons often added further identification, saying, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (Mr 10:47; Ac 2:22) Christ is from the Greek Khri·stosʹ, the equivalent of the Hebrew Ma·shiʹach (Messiah), and means “Anointed One.” Whereas the expression “anointed one” was properly applied to others before Jesus, such as Moses, Aaron, and David (Heb 11:24-26; Le 4:3; 8:12; 2Sa 22:51), the position, office, or service to which these were anointed only prefigured the superior position, office, and service of Jesus Christ. Jesus is therefore preeminently and uniquely “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—Mt 16:16; see CHRIST; MESSIAH.

And before anyone starts about the use of the "J":


Joshua: Insight, Volume 2

(Joshʹu·a) [shortened form of Jehoshua, meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation”].

1. Son of Nun; an Ephraimite who ministered to Moses and was later appointed as his successor. (Ex 33:11; De 34:9; Jos 1:1, 2) The Scriptures portray Joshua as a bold and fearless leader, one who was confident in the certainty of Jehovah’s promises, obedient to divine direction, and determined to serve Jehovah in faithfulness. His original name was Hoshea, but Moses called him Joshua or Jehoshua. (Nu 13:8, 16) The Bible record, however, does not reveal just when Hoshea came to be known as Joshua.
...
2. Owner of a field at Beth-shemesh where the sacred Ark first came to rest and was exposed to view after being returned by the Philistines.—1Sa 6:14, 18.

3. Chief of Jerusalem in the time of King Josiah. It appears that high places used for false worship were located near Joshua’s residence, but Josiah had these pulled down.—2Ki 23:8.

4. Son of Jehozadak; the first high priest to serve the repatriated Israelites following their return from Babylonian exile. (Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2-4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11) In the Bible books of Ezra and Nehemiah, he is called Jeshua.—See JESHUA No. 4.

(Jeshʹu·a) [possibly a shortened form of Jehoshua, meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation”].

1. An Aaronic priest in David’s time. ...

2. One of the Levites assigned to distribute the tithes and contributions in the priests’ cities during the reign of King Hezekiah.—2Ch 31:15.

3. An Israelite of the family of Pahath-moab, some of whose descendants returned from Babylonian exile with Zerubbabel.—Ezr 2:1, 2, 6; Ne 7:11.

4. A high priest (called Joshua in Haggai and Zechariah), son of Jehozadak and grandson of Seraiah. (Ezr 3:8; Ne 12:26; 1Ch 6:14) He was of the house of Eleazar.—See Ezr 7:1-5 for the genealogy from Eleazar to Seraiah.

When Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem he put to death Seraiah, who was high priest then, and took Jehozadak captive to Babylon. (2Ki 25:18-21; 1Ch 6:14, 15) Jeshua returned from Babylon in 537 B.C.E. with Zerubbabel and served as high priest to the restored Jewish remnant. (Ezr 2:2; 5:2; Ne 7:7; Hag 1:1) Thus the high-priestly line was preserved by Jehovah, so that Israel had the services of high priests from the restoration until the coming of the Messiah. Jeshua took the lead, along with Zerubbabel, in setting up the altar, then in rebuilding the temple, encouraged by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. (Ezr 3:2; 5:1, 2) He stood by Zerubbabel in opposing the adversaries of the temple reconstruction.—Ezr 4:1-3.

Some of the older ones among the returned Israelites had seen the glory of Solomon’s temple and tended to view the rebuilt temple as nothing in comparison. Haggai the prophet was sent to speak to Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua), telling them that the glory of the later house would become greater than that of the former one. Jehovah would do this by bringing in “the desirable things of all the nations.”—Hag 2:1-4, 7, 9.

The prophet Zechariah was given a vision in which he beheld Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan at his right hand to resist him. “Joshua” was given a change from befouled garments to robes of state and a clean turban. Then “Joshua” was told of God’s servant Sprout.—Zec 3:1-8.

At another time Jehovah told Zechariah to put a crown on Joshua’s (Jeshua’s) head and to say to him: “Here is the man whose name is Sprout. . . . And he himself will build the temple of Jehovah, . . . and he must become a priest upon his throne.” This prophecy certainly applied to someone future for, under the Law, priesthood and kingship were strictly separate, and High Priest Joshua never ruled as king over Israel.—Zec 6:11-13.

5. ...
6. ...
...
8. ...

As mentioned at the start of this comment:

...The name itself was not unusual, many men being so named in that period. For this reason persons often added further identification, saying, “Jesus the Nazarene.” (Mr 10:47; Ac 2:22) Christ is from the Greek Khri·stosʹ, the equivalent of the Hebrew Ma·shiʹach (Messiah), and means “Anointed One.” Whereas the expression “anointed one” was properly applied to others before Jesus, such as Moses, Aaron, and David (Heb 11:24-26; Le 4:3; 8:12; 2Sa 22:51), the position, office, or service to which these were anointed only prefigured the superior position, office, and service of Jesus Christ. Jesus is therefore preeminently and uniquely “the Christ, the Son of the living God.”—Mt 16:16...

In case the following wasn't clear yet...

Jesus Christ is prophetically spoken of in the Hebrew Scriptures as Jehovah’s servant “Sprout” (NW, Le) or “the Branch” (KJ, AT), “the Bud” (Ro). (Zec 3:8) At Zechariah 6:12, 13, “the man whose name is Sprout” is described as building the temple of Jehovah and sitting as a priest upon his throne. This can apply to none other than Jesus Christ, since he alone could fill the office of King and Priest under God’s arrangement. Jesus Christ is promised as a righteous “sprout” raised up to David. This One will execute righteousness and justice. (Jer 23:5; 33:15; compare Isa 53:2; Re 22:16.) He is also called a twig and a sprout out of Jesse, David’s father.—Isa 11:1.

Source: Branch, Sprout: Insight, Volume 1

a reply to: whereislogic


None of that proves that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed. But, it does give creadence to the theory that Paul's High Priest, Jesus Christ, is actually Joshua.

a reply to: windword
The evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, who is also called Jesus of Nazareth and "the Christ" for reasons earlier given, is discussed in the initial comment you were replying to without responding to anything that is relevant in that regards in that comment directly, such as the quotation from The Encyclopædia Britannica. Is there nothing you have to say about that quotation? Or for example the testimony of Flavius Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian who was a Pharisee, who said among other things:

[Ananus the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.

Yes, a Pharisee, a member of the sect many of whose adherents were avowed enemies of Jesus, acknowledged the existence of “James, the brother of Jesus.”

Or the actual point right after what you quoted and replied to (which was just an introduction to the point and you merely repeated the argument without taking the proposed "only satisfactory explanation" to the rhetorical questions raised into consideration or responding to that part):

Let us imagine that someone fabricated a figure called Jesus Christ. Suppose that person was clever enough to come up with the teachings credited to Jesus in the Bible. Would he not contrive to make Jesus and his teachings as palatable as possible to people in general? ...
The message of Christ impaled was attractive neither to the Jews nor to the nations. That was, though, the Christ that first-century Christians proclaimed. Why the depiction of the Christ impaled? The only satisfactory explanation would be that the writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures recorded the truth about Jesus’ life and death.

a reply to: whereislogic

Do you believe that Hercules and Zeus were also real? They were written about more that Jesus was!

This is page 42, and you are bringing things up that have already been discussed, ad-naseum, in this thread.

Here's a link to my 8 pages of responses to your "evidence", and more: Link

Or for example the testimony of Flavius Josephus

These are well known pious forgeries, to which you refer. It's well agreed upon by Christian scholars that Josephus does not prove the existence of Jesus.

You should read the thread instead of dropping already litigated arguments on page 42, like nobody has ever heard of your "new" evidence before!

Let us imagine that someone fabricated a figure called Jesus Christ.

Someone did, as I explained in my first response to you. There was never a man named "Jesus Christ", as "Christ" is the title that was bestowed, supposedly, on Jesus of Nazareth after he is said to have risen from the dead, and they "imagined" that to be a sign of the "Christ".

Again, there were many, before and after the event of Jesus of Nazareth, both Pagan and Hebrew, claiming the moniker of "Christ".

Believing in Jesus "Christ" is a matter of faith, not fact.

a reply to: windword

"I contend we are both atheists; I just believe in one less god than you do."

a reply to: Gryphon66

We are all "innocent Jesuses" in a world where there is no justice, where life consumes life with voracious gusto, where death and exploitation are required in order to thrive!

What did I do to deserve such a filthy existence? I cannot not be! I will beat life and I will beat death. I will rise, in all my innocent glory, to the heights of Heaven, where I came from and where I belong!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: whereislogic

These are well known pious forgeries, to which you refer.

Let's see the evidence that made you come to that conclusion that seems to ignore the following as earlier mentioned...

Although some doubt the authenticity of the first reference where Josephus mentioned Jesus as the Messiah, Professor Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University says that few have doubted the genuineness of the second reference.

So I guess you're one of the few. Why? Because it tickles your ears or do you have a legitimate reason for calling it a 'pious forgery', the exact same term I heard from the Atheist Experience Show and amateur history hour...what The Encyclopædia Britannica would refer to as "inadequate grounds"? Do you have (or got it from someone with) any training or degrees in the proper methodologies for reconstructing history and verifying the authenticity of ancient documents (and what supporting evidence was used if you want to point to the claims of other trained historians who have expertise in this particular subfield or regarding this particular subject)? Like Professor Louis H. Feldman who according to his own wiki-page (do you have your own wiki-page?):

...was an American professor of classics and literature.
...
Feldman was a scholar of Hellenistic civilization, specifically the works of Josephus Flavius. Feldman's work on Josephus is widely respected by other scholars.
...undergraduate degree (as valedictorian)... master’s degree....doctoral degree in philology from Harvard University...
A fellow of the American Academy for Jewish Research, he received numerous other fellowships and awards.

He seems to be a bit of a "widely respected" expert on this subject. And as a Jew, hardly biased in favor of the historicity of Jesus Christ. And it should be obvious from what I quoted from my initial comment, that he's not the only one that has come to this conclusion regarding "the genuineness of the second reference" to "Jesus who was called the Christ" by the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus Flavius, whose piousness would have been (as is clearly seen from his works) anti-Jesus, antichrist, anti-Christian and pro-Jewish (pro-Judaism being a Pharisee).

2 Timothy 4:3,4

For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

1st *: Or “healthful; beneficial.”
2nd *: Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”

If you feel like it you may continue your demonstration of the reliability of the text above but preferrably with more specifics or clarifications regarding what I'm asking about, that might be more convincing depending on the exact content or which questions you choose to answer. I still don't know your opinion on this:

After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries, The Encyclopædia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

I'm rolling with Albert Einstein on this one, Jesus did exist as a real person, and was a great philosopher, but not the son of god.

a reply to: Grimpachi

What about the slew of evidence that corroborates the OT? The Austin chalk line, city if Sodom, the ark, bacterial flagellums, ect, ect? I recommend looking into these things. If it doesn't sway you, you still get to read up on some very interesting actual science. Not the guesses liberal arts professors throw at you. The city of Sodom alone has a mind boggling amount of research from various scientific disciplines. I didn't believe until I saw evidence. Its out there. We aren't idiots because we believe in G-d. Some of us believe because of solid evidence. Or a ton of semi-compelling evidence, in my case. Either way, look into it. You might be surprised.

a reply to: whereislogic

Let's see the evidence that made you come to that conclusion that seems to ignore the following as earlier mentioned...

I posted it already. How about you read the thread? Josephus mentions no less than 19 Jesuses.
Even your own source says that at the first quote was considered "doubtful", in other words, a "pious forgery", added to give credence to the myth of Jesus Christ centuries later!

Thus, even though Josephus may not have referred to Jesus, that does not necessarily imply that there was no historical Jesus. While a reference to Jesus would help substantiate the historicity of Jesus, it, by the same token, wouldn't necessarily settle the question outright, especially when the supposed reference is the subject of such severe textual difficulties. While the appeal to the text of Josephus is often made in the attempt to secure the place of Jesus as a figure in history, the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure to carry the burden assigned to it.
www.earlychristianwritings.com...

......And, the Bible doesn't prove the Bible to be true, so, quoting scripture is meaningless.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: whereislogic
Josephus mentions no less than 19 Jesuses.

That the name "Jesus" is a common name is irrelevant regarding your factual/absolute claim about "pious forgeries". You phrased that as if it was a certainty that they (implying all extrabiblical pieces of evidence in my initial comment the way you phrased it) were pious forgeries. I'd like to see some evidence for this other than red herrings (an explanation about why the word "pious" would apply to opponents of Christ and Christians might also be in order, since the 3 examples given were all "opponents of Christianity" as The Encyclopædia Britannica describes it).

Even your own source says that at the first quote was considered "doubtful", in other words, a "pious forgery",...

No, mentioning:

Although some doubt the authenticity of the first reference where Josephus mentioned Jesus as the Messiah, Professor Louis H. Feldman of Yeshiva University says that few have doubted the genuineness of the second reference.

...is not the same as claiming or implying that it is a fact/certainty that either or both the first reference and the second reference were "pious forgeries" or that "the text of Josephus itself is far too insecure" to be regarded as additional evidence regarding any history (or that it's unreasonable to bring it up as an example of multiple pieces of evidence that builds a case for the historicity of Jesus Christ). And focussing on responding to what's said about the first reference (and twisting it to what you want to hear) is still a red herring (and demonstrating you're only interested in bringing up that which you want to hear, which tickles your ears), the main topic in that sentence is what's said about the second reference.

These are the historical facts that remain unchallenged by anything you've brought up, as correctly stated by those keeping The Encyclopædia Britannica up to date with the facts of the matter, referring to multiple extrabiblical sources:

After summarizing the references to Jesus Christ and his followers by the historians of the first two centuries [whereislogic: including Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger], The Encyclopædia Britannica (2002 edition) concludes: “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

Which I'm seeing you do as well. Especially with your simplistic brush painting all these sources that people who take their job of reporting the facts seriously refer to as "independent accounts" as "pious forgeries" with one single stroke. Then bringing up quotations that only talk about Josephus and in a manner that actually addresses a straw man argument, which may or may not be used by people in the manner described by your quotation but is irrelevant to anything I brought up and the manner it was presented and reported on by widely respected experts in this field of reconstructing history and reporting on the (historical) facts. That doesn't offer me much to go on, to think that The Encyclopædia Britannica is wrong in reporting the fact that these are "inadequate grounds" to dispute the historicity of Jesus Christ, or to doubt if they are right about it. Since it provides further evidence in the form of a personal observation that they are right.

It's easy to argue against any piece of evidence (especially piece for piece) that one doesn't want to put up with, doesn't want to hear, with a simple stroke of the mental brush. 'Extrabiblical? ah, it's a forgery, it's unreliable, it doesn't prove anything conclusively, except that it's a forgery but I won't spell that out, I'll just switch to whichever one is most convenient at the time. Biblical? ah, it's circular reasoning, it's unreliable, it doesn't prove anything conclusively, except that it's a book of myths but I won't spell that out; everyone rally at the agnosticism rally point, those who want to wear a T-shirt that says "I'm an Atheist" are welcome too, we'll just redefine atheism with the definition for agnosticism or something that sounds more like it'. Pardon my rambling about things I've heard in more sophisticated and cunning argumentation over and over. Some people could use a change of pace and use some serious sources and relevant things to discuss other than arguing according to the same prepared mental pathways (including straw man arguments) they've cycled through over and over already, ad-nauseam indeed.

a reply to: whereislogic

“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus

That's just not true. Even early Christians didn't agree that "Christ" ever took on human form. In other words, there was doubt among early Christians that Jesus Christ ever existed. There is no proof, whatsoever, that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed.

Early Christian Father Origen argued with Greek philosopher Celsus on the existence of Jesus Christ, in his famous writing "Against/Contra Celsus". Justin Martyr argued that Jesus Christ was a son of Zeus, and compared him to Hercules.

But, if you had read the thread, you'd know that this has already been discussed.

There is no proof that Jesus of Nazareth ever really existed, and certainly the person depicted in the Bible, being born of a virgin, performing miracles and rising from the dead, never existed. This is mythology, as valid as Hercules and Perseus.

At least this one is voiced by Cate Blanchett who did a decent job telling tales in the Lord of the Rings:

I imagine 'she' can still get a bit repetitive though. At least she doesn't feel the need to dodge subjects and questions* to go through the same routine of distracting arguments that some people can fill pages on ATS with and then complain about things being repeated ad nauseam. *: and requests for further clarifications or explanations regarding the logic of an argument or reasons for thinking such an argument makes sense or that it's the fact/truth of the matter, as proposed or presented in the argument.

Somehow, I don't think there's much point in asking what discussing "early Christians" and lovers of Pagan philosophy who corrupted Christianity to develop Christendom (as per the bible prophecies concerning false religion, the antichrist and Babylon the Great) such as the so-called "Church Fathers" (when Jesus said something important about using "Father" as a religious title), has to do with what the independent accounts of opponents of Christianity prove regarding the (historical) debate about the historicity of Jesus Christ. Shouldn't someone be focussing on responding with something about the independent accounts of opponents of Christianity instead (specifically the ones referred to) if they want to quote that part of the sentence (which incidentally happens to be the only part I never bolded except for in my initial comment in this thread where I bolded the whole paragraph, or if you want to count the time I bolded the word "prove")?

What do the views of so-called "early Christians" (I wouldn't call the example given an "early Christian") have to do with determining the views of "opponents of Christianity"? Since that was the subject in the statement quoted.

a reply to: windword

The number of non Christian scholars that deny Jesus existed isn't
even a threat to the truth of the matter. Most wouldn't think of
entertaining the thought.

It isn't odd that those who deny the existence of God also deny
the existence of his son. And evidence we all know wouldn't
change that in anyway.

So really, why do we need evidence?

It's kind of hard to have the demanded empirical evidence without
a body.

And I don't care how hard you look. You won't ever find one.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthera

...that's Pretty Damn METAL if you ask me...

a reply to: randyvs

The number of non Christian scholars that deny Jesus existed isn't
even a threat to the truth of the matter. Most wouldn't think of
entertaining the thought.

key word... "Christian" scholars

One does not need to be Christian to be a scholar of the bible, or any other religious text

And theres quite a few non christians that deny his existence... so both have their bias